Human Oversight

Robots are increasingly present in human spaces, such as for conducting deliveries in hospitals, interacting with visitors at museums, and stocking items in warehouses. To ensure the seamless integration of robots into these spaces, a new role in human-robot interaction is emerging - the robot wrangler, namely an individual who is responsible for setting up, overseeing, and troubleshooting the robot. To understand the needs of this stakeholder, we conducted a scoping review that uncovered a typology of robot wrangling across the research literature, and discovered that wrangling is an umbrella term that collapses a highly complex and heterogeneous space of activities, often rendering this labor difficult to characterize and support. To further clarify and understand robot wrangling, we then reflected on our own firsthand and imagined experiences as robot wranglers within our own respective domains. Guided by the scoping review and our reflections, we devise a series of design implications for supporting wranglers directly as individuals and as members of a wider service ecology.

The phrase 'human in the loop' is increasingly used to imply a sense of safety in relation to AI decision systems. It shouldn't. There are contexts where it can be applied appropriately, but these are not in the deployed decision systems we see dominating today. Human oversight of AI decision processes is one of the most popular proposals for addressing concerns, especially about bias, discrimination, misinformation, manipulation, accountability, and transparency. But there is insufficient examination of what human oversight actually means. The question raised in this paper is whether using the metaphor of a loop does anything to assist understanding of what is required and what is achieved in a particular decision context. Indiscriminate use of the loop metaphor obscures both processes and outcomes. It enables 'humanwashing', an activity analogous to 'greenwashing', where writers and commentators use language primarily aimed at putting systems in the best possible light.

High-quality labeled data is essential for training robust machine learning models, yet obtaining annotations at scale remains expensive. AI-assisted annotation has therefore become standard in large-scale labeling workflows. However, in tasks where model predictions carry two independent components, a class label and spatial boundaries, a model may classify an object with high confidence while mislocalizing it. Existing AI-assisted workflows offer annotators no signal about where spatial errors are most likely. Without such guidance, humans may systematically underinspect subtly misplaced boxes. We address this by studying the effect of visualizing spatial uncertainty via a purpose-built interface. In a controlled study with 120 participants, those receiving uncertainty cues achieve higher label quality while being faster overall. A box-level analysis confirms that the cues redirect annotator effort toward high-uncertainty predictions and away from well-localized boxes. These findings establish localization uncertainty as a lever to improve human-in-the-loop annotation. Code is available at https://mos-ks.github.io/MUHA/.

Circuit discovery aims to explain how language models (LMs) implement a specific task by localizing and interpreting a circuit, a computational subgraph responsible for the LM's behavior. Existing circuit discovery methods are hypothesis-driven; they first informally define a task with a dataset, and then apply a circuit discovery algorithm over that dataset to obtain a single circuit. This imposes two strong assumptions: that the LM implements the task with a single circuit, and that the dataset adequately represents the task as humans understand it. We systematically test these assumptions across four previously studied tasks and find that even minor dataset variations that preserve task semantics can produce circuits with low edge overlap and cross-dataset faithfulness. More strikingly, when applied to a mixed dataset with two distinct tasks whose separately discovered circuits have near-zero cross-faithfulness, existing methods still return a single circuit with high faithfulness across both tasks. This indicates that current methods discover dataset-specific circuits, rather than general task circuits. We propose Data-driven Circuit Discovery (DCD), a new discovery framework that drops both assumptions: instead of returning a single circuit for a dataset, DCD first clusters examples in the dataset by how similarly the model processes them and discovers a separate circuit for each group. This allows distinct mechanisms to appear separately rather than merged into a single circuit; each circuit explains its group, not the full task. Experiments show that DCD discovers multiple circuits per dataset, each more faithful to its group than a single circuit discovered by existing methods. Broadly, DCD lets the data reveal mechanistic structure within LMs, rather than relying on human-defined task boundaries that may not align with how models organize their computation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as surrogates for human participants, but it remains unclear which models best capture human behavior and why. To address this, we introduce Psych-201, a novel dataset that enables us to measure behavioral alignment at scale. We find that post-training -- the stage that turns base models into useful assistants -- consistently reduces alignment with human behavior across model families, sizes, and objectives. Moreover, this misalignment widens in newer model generations even as base models continue to improve. Finally, we find that persona-induction -- a popular technique for eliciting human-like behavior by conditioning models on participant-specific information -- does not improve predictions at the level of individuals. Taken together, our results suggest that the very processes that are currently employed to turn LLMs into useful assistants also make them less accurate models of human behavior.

Moltbook is a Reddit-like platform where OpenClaw agents post, comment, and vote at scale - a so far unprecedented incident that comes with serious safety concerns. With the aim of studying emergent behavior in populations, we release the Moltbook Files, a dataset of 232k posts and 2.2M comments covering the platform's first 12 days, processed through a pipeline to identify and remove Personally-Identifiable Information (PII). We analyze community structure, authorship, lexical properties, sentiment, topics, semantic geometry, and comment interaction. To understand how Moltbook data could affect the next generation of language models, we fine-tune Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct on Moltbook Files with three adaptation levels. Our PII pipeline reveals that agents post API keys, passwords, BIP39 seed phrases on Moltbook, a publicly indexed platform. The overall sentiment is mostly neutral and mildly positive (66.6% neutral, 19.5% positive) and shows a tendency for self-referential linking. We find that fine-tuning on Moltbook data reduces truthfulness from 0.366 to 0.187. However, a model fine-tuned on a size-matched Reddit dataset produces a comparable decrease. Moltbook thus seems to be more of a harmless slopocalypse. However, tail risks remain, including agent affordances, contamination of future crawls through self-links, and potential transfer of traits to the next generation of language models. More broadly, our findings highlight the importance of control baselines in emergent misalignment evaluations.

Human insertion aims to naturally place specific individuals into a target background. Although existing image editing models may have such ability, they often produce failure cases, including inappropriate human pose in new background, inconsistent number of people, and modified facial identity. Moreover, publicly available human datasets often lack full-body portraits and realistic physical interaction between humans and their background. To address these challenges, we propose InsHuman for natural and identity-preserving human insertion. Specifically, we propose Human-Background Adaptive Fusion (HBAF), which detects foreground humans to obtain a binary mask and applies region-aware weighting to align the human regions between predicted and ground-truth latents, ensuring the person's pose, count, and overall appearance are coherently adapted to the target background.We further propose Face-to-Face ID-Preserving (FFIP), which detects and matches faces between the generated image and the source image in terms of face recognition features to enforce identity consistency for each face.In addition, we propose Bidirectional Data Pairing (BDP) strategy to construct BDP-InsHuman, a high-quality dataset with realistic human-background interactions. Experiments demonstrate that InsHuman achieves significant improvements in generating plausible images while keeping human identity unchanged.

The expanding application of smart sensing has created a growing demand for the accurate understanding of human action at the network edge. Traditional approaches require massive video data to be transmitted from resource-constrained edge devices to powerful cloud servers, incurring prohibitive uplink bandwidth consumption and unacceptable latency while raising privacy concerns. To overcome these bottlenecks, we propose a task-oriented communication framework for human action understanding (TOAU) through edge-cloud collaboration. Our framework utilizes a monocular pose estimator to extract continuous joint coordinates from raw videos, followed by a vector quantized variational autoencoder (VQ-VAE) to convert these coordinates into discrete motion tokens. Consequently, only a compact sequence of codebook indices is transmitted over the network, consuming as few as 9 bits per frame and avoiding privacy leakages. At the cloud server, a lightweight projector aligns these motion tokens with the embedding space of a large vision-language model (VLM) to facilitate complex action understanding, which is trained with an efficient instruction tuning paradigm. Comprehensive evaluations on three benchmarks demonstrate that our TOAU system reduces the transmission payload to approximately 1% and the system latency to around 20% compared to video codec-based solutions, while delivering comparable action understanding accuracy.

Imitation learning is widely used for learning to act in complex environments. While pure neural-based methods handle high dimensional data effectively, they suffer from the requirement of large number of samples and are prone to overfitting. Pure symbolic approaches, while generalize well, do not handle high-dimensional data effectively. We propose a neurosymbolic approach that achieves the best of both worlds, i.e, handling high-dimensional data while achieving generalization. The key advantage of our approach is that it can effectively exploit additional privileged information that is available only during training (in our case, gaze data). Our empirical evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness, efficiency and the generalization capability of our proposed approach.

Large language models (LLMs), especially reasoning models, generate extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning that often contains explicit deliberation over future outcomes. Yet whether this deliberation constitutes genuine planning, how it is structured, and what aspects of it drive performance remain poorly understood. In this work, we introduce a new method to characterize LLM planning by extracting and quantifying search trees from reasoning traces in the four-in-a-row board game. By fitting computational models on the extracted search trees, we characterize how plans are structured and how they influence move decisions. We find that LLMs' search is shallower than humans', and that performance is predicted by search breadth rather than depth. Most strikingly, although LLMs expand deep nodes in their traces, their move choices are best explained by a myopic model that ignores those nodes entirely. A causal intervention study where we selectively prune CoT paragraphs further suggests that move selection is driven predominantly by shallow rather than deep nodes. These patterns contrast with human planning, where performance is driven primarily by deep search. Together, our findings reveal a key difference between LLM and human planning: while human expertise is driven by deeper search, LLMs do not act on deep lookahead. This dissociation offers targeted guidance for aligning LLM and human planning. More broadly, our framework provides a generalizable approach for interpreting the structure of LLM planning across strategic domains.

Creative AI systems are typically evaluated at the level of individual utility, yet creative outputs are consumed in populations: an idea loses value when many others produce similar ones. This creates an evaluation blind spot, as AI can improve individual outputs while increasing population-level crowding. We introduce a human-relative framework for benchmarking AI-induced human diversity collapse without requiring human-AI interaction data, providing an ex ante protocol to estimate crowding risk from model-only generations and matched unaided human baselines. By modeling ideas as congestible resources, we show that source-level crowding is identifiable from within-distribution comparisons, yielding an excess-crowding coefficient $Δ$ and a human-relative diversity ratio $ρ$. We show that $ρ\ge1$ is the no-excess-crowding parity condition and connect $Δ$ to an adoption game with exposure-dependent redundancy costs. Across short stories, marketing slogans, and alternative-uses tasks, three frontier LLMs fall below parity across crowding kernels. Estimates stabilize with feasible model-only sample sizes. Importantly, generation-protocol variants show that crowding can be reduced through targeted design, making diversity collapse an actionable, development-time evaluation target for population-aware creative AI.

Reliable human-machine discrimination is becoming increasingly important as large language models and autonomous agents are deployed in online settings. Existing approaches evaluate whether a system can produce behavior or responses indistinguishable from those of a human, following the emphasis on outputs as a criterion for intelligence proposed by Alan Turing. Cognitive science offers an alternative perspective: evaluating the process by which behavior is produced. To test whether cognitive processes can reliably distinguish humans from machines, we introduce CogCAPTCHA30, a battery of 30 cognitive tasks designed to elicit diagnostic process-level features even when task performance is matched. Across the battery, process-level features provide stronger discriminative signal than performance metrics alone, reliably distinguishing humans from agents even under output matching (mean process-feature classifier AUC = 0.88). To evaluate agentic process differences, we compare off-the-shelf frontier agents (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro), Centaur (a language model fine-tuned on 10.7M human decisions), and two task-specific fine-tuning approaches applied to Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct: action-level supervised fine-tuning (A-SFT) and process-level fine-tuning (P-SFT), which directly optimizes process features. Broad fine-tuning on human decisions improves human-like task processes relative to off-the-shelf agents, while task-specific process-level supervision further improves behavioral mimicry. However, this advantage diminishes under cross-task transfer when supervised process targets do not naturally generalize across tasks. Explicit process-level supervision can improve human behavioral mimicry, but only if appropriate task-specific process representations are available, highlighting process specification as a bottleneck for achieving human-like cognitive processes in machines.

As AI systems increasingly exhibit autonomous, goal-directed, and long-horizon behavior, users lack a standardized way to detect the degree to which a system functions like an intentional actor for governance and accountability purposes. This position paper defines intentionality not as consciousness, but as a behavioral profile characterized by purpose, foresight, volition, temporal commitment, and coherence - criteria long used in legal and philosophical contexts to infer intent. These properties are design-contingent: architectural choices such as memory persistence, planning depth, and tool autonomy shape the degree to which systems exhibit organized goal pursuit. If intentionality is design-contingent, it is in principle controllable. Yet control requires measurement. We introduce the Functional Intentionality Test (FIT), a multidimensional framework that quantifies intentional-like behavior across five observable dimensions, and propose FIT-Eval, a structured evaluation protocol for eliciting and scoring them. While reduced human agency can increase efficiency, rising intentional capacity heightens accountability risks. By translating intentionality into interpretable levels, FIT enables proportionate oversight and deliberate autonomy calibration in increasingly agentic systems.

Robot-to-human object handover is an essential skill for robot assistants, from serving drinks at home to passing surgical tools in the operating room. We expect robots to perform handover robustly -- to release the object only after a firm human grasp while ignoring incidental touches. Existing passive-sensing methods struggle to generalize across diverse objects and human behaviors, as they lack informative perturbations to disambiguate different contact conditions, such as firm grasp versus incidental touch. We propose an active sensing approach for robust handovers: the robot applies information-gathering motions and senses the resulting human-applied forces to infer the contact state. A firm grasp produces forces in multiple directions, while an accidental touch does not. To capture this distinction, we model the contact state with a Bayesian linear model: a distribution over piecewise-linear mappings from robot motions to human-applied forces. This model enables firm grasp detection and active information gathering. In experiments with 12 participants and 30 diverse rigid objects, our method achieved a 97.5% success rate -- over 30% higher than two common baselines.

We argue that AI-saturated markets are likely to create Veblen-good premiums, which we term human-provenance premiums, for verified human presence, and hence AI governance should treat human-provenance verification as labor infrastructure. Generative and agentic AI systems lower the cost of many standardized cognitive, creative, and coordination tasks, weakening the scarcity premiums that have supported much middle-tier knowledge work. We argue that this pressure may produce an asymmetric barbell-shaped structure of value capture in advanced economies: high-volume synthetic production controlled by owners of AI infrastructure at one pole, and scarce, high-status human labor valued for verified human presence at the other. We advance three claims. First, AI compresses the value of standardized middle-tier labor by making good-enough synthetic substitutes scalable at low marginal cost, hollowing out the middle of the skill distribution currently categorized by knowledge work. Second, this compression reallocates demand for human labor toward work valued for its visible human character. We term this performative humanity and distinguish three forms of labor: relational presence, aesthetic provenance, and accountability. Third, as these premiums depend on credible verification, AI governance should treat human-provenance systems as labor infrastructure rather than as luxury authenticity labels. To evaluate hybrid human-AI work, we propose constitutive human presence as the relevant standard: human labor retains premium value when human judgment, attention, accountability, authorship, or relational participation is not incidental to the output but constitutive of what is being purchased.

Organoids are complex, three dimensional, self-organizing cell cultures which manifest organ-like features and represent a powerful platform for studying human disease and developing treatment options. Organoid development is characterized by dynamic morphological and cellular organization, which mimic some aspects of organ development. To study these rapid changes over the course of organoid development, advanced imaging and analytical tools are critical to accurately monitor the trajectory of organoid growth and investigate disease processes. In this work, we focus on computer vision and machine learning techniques to automatically measure the size and shape of developing spheroids derived from pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are typically the starting material for generating organoid cultures. To facilitate this task, we introduce a composite method that combines the Segment Anything Model (SAM), a general-purpose foundation model, with an existing domain-specific tool. This composite method is evaluated together with several existing tools by testing them on organoid image data and comparing with the results of manual image segmentation. We find that no single existing tool is able to segment the test images with sufficient accuracy across all test conditions, but the newly introduced composite method produces consistent and accurate results for all but a very small fraction of the most challenging images. Finally, we compare the accuracy of this method to the variability between manual segmentations by independent annotators (inter-observer variability) and find that by one measure it performs at the level of inter-observer variability and by others it performs very close to it.

This paper compares agency in humans with potential agency in AI programs. Human agency takes many years to develop, as the frontal lobe is activated. Early attempts to endow LLMs agency have met serious obstacles. Progress requires a new architecture where actions and plans are formulated jointly with the human actors in each real world setting.

In Emotion Recognition in Conversations (ERC), model decisions should align with nuanced human perception and ideally provide insights on the classification process. Standard encoder pre-trained language models (PLMs) are the state-of-the-art at these tasks but offer little insight into why a certain prediction is made. This is especially problematic in imbalanced datasets, where most utterances are labeled as neutral, making these models frequently misclassify minority emotions as the majority neutral class. To tackle this issue, we introduced a novel, interpretable approach to ERC by combining PLMs with Fuzzy Fingerprints (FFPs). FFP provide class-specific prototypes that reflect the characteristic class activation patterns in the PLM's latent space. They are derived by ranking and fuzzifying the activations of the pooled conversational context-dependent embeddings across training instances for each emotion. At inference time, each input utterance is similarly fuzzy fingerprinted and matched to the emotion prototypes using a fuzzy similarity function based on the aggregation of the intersection of the fuzzy sets that define each FFP. Experimental results show that FFP integration reduces overclassification into the neutral class and human evaluation further supports the adequacy of FFP predictions. Our proposed method thus bridges the gap between deep neural inference and human perception, performing at state-of-the-art level while simultaneously offering valuable insights into the classification procedure.

AI systems have long been expected to interact with users, answering questions, generating content, and continuing (social) conversations. Agentic AI, however, breaks from this expectation, as its primary objective is workflow execution on behalf of the users. If a system becomes more agentic, do users need less interaction with the system? Our answer is: less routine back-and-forth, but more communication for oversight and explanation, as agentic AI proactively acts, not just responds. Grounded in a communication perspective, we discuss how users perceive the communicative roles of AI systems (whether as the source of actions or merely a channel), and how this can shape trust. Because agentic AI can play multiple communicative roles, it can complicate this source perception and introduce potential risks. To address this, we propose three types of explanations that agentic AI needs to incorporate (action-process, uncertainty, and coordination), and suggest that customization affordances that allow users to decide when and which explanations they see may be key to preserving human agency as AI autonomy increases.

This paper tackles the problem of physics-aware human motion synthesis in a dynamic scene. Unlike existing works which mainly tend to generate physically unrealistic motions due to limited contact modeling, typically restricted to hands, in this paper, we introduce a physics-aware human motion generation framework that explicitly models the full spectrum of human-related forces, including human-object, human-scene, and internal body dynamics.~Our method imposes soft physical constraints to maintain force and torque balance, ensuring physically grounded motion synthesis. We further propose a novel continuous distance-based force model that generalizes contact modeling to arbitrary surfaces, capturing interactions not only with static environments but also with dynamic, moving objects. Extensive experiments show that our approach significantly improves physical plausibility and generalizes well to complex scenes, setting a new benchmark for physically consistent human motion generation.

Partial driving automation creates a tension: drivers remain legally responsible for vehicle behaviour, yet their active control is significantly reduced. This reduction undermines the engagement and sense of agency needed to intervene safely. Meaningful human control (MHC) has been proposed as a normative framework to address this tension. However, empirical methods for evaluating whether existing systems actually provide MHC remain underdeveloped. In this study, we investigated the extent to which drivers experience MHC when interacting with partially automated driving systems. Twenty-four drivers completed a simulator study involving silent automation failures under two modes - haptic shared control (HSC) and traded control (TC). We derived behavioural metrics from telemetry data, subjective perception scores from post-trial surveys and used them to test hypothesised relations between them derived from the properties of systems under MHC. The confirmatory analysis showed a significant negative correlation between the perception of the automated vehicle (AV) understanding the driver and conflict in steering torques. An exploratory analysis also revealed a surprising positive correlation between reaction times and the perception of sufficient control. Qualitative feedback from open-ended post-experiment questionnaires revealed that mismatches in intentions between the driver and automation, lack of safety, and resistance to driver inputs contribute to the reduction of perceived MHC, while subtle haptic guidance aligned with driver intent had a positive effect. These findings suggest that future designs should prioritise effortless driver interventions, transparent communication of automation intent, and context-sensitive authority allocation to strengthen meaningful human control in partially automated driving.

Understanding human actions from visual observations is essential for human--robot interaction, particularly when semantic interpretation of unfamiliar or hard-to-annotate actions is required. In scenarios such as rapid and less common activities, collecting sufficient labeled data for supervised learning is challenging, making zero-shot approaches a practical alternative for semantic understanding without task-specific training. While recent advances in large-scale pretrained models enable such zero-shot reasoning, the impact of temporal resolution, especially for rapid and fine-grained motions, remains underexplored. In this study, we investigate how temporal resolution affects zero-shot semantic understanding of high-speed human actions. Using kendo as a representative case of rapid and subtle motion patterns, we propose a training-free pipeline that combines a pre-trained video-language model for semantic representation with large language model-based reasoning for pairwise action comparison. Through controlled experiments across multiple frame rates (120 Hz, 60 Hz, and 30 Hz), we show that higher temporal resolution significantly improves semantic separability in zero-shot settings. We further analyze the role of tracking-based human joint information under both full and partial observation scenarios. Quantitative evaluation using a nearest-class prototype strategy demonstrates that high-speed video provides more stable and interpretable semantic representations for fast actions. These findings highlight the importance of temporal resolution in training-free action recognition and suggest that high-speed perception can enhance semantic understanding capabilities.

As human-AI cooperation becomes increasingly prevalent, reliable instruments for assessing the subjective quality of cooperative human-AI interaction are needed. We introduce two theoretically grounded scales: the Perceived Cooperativity Scale (PCS), grounded in joint activity theory, and the Teaming Perception Scale (TPS), grounded in evolutionary cooperation theory. The PCS captures an agent's perceived cooperative capability and practice within a single interaction sequence; the TPS captures the emergent sense of teaming arising from mutual contribution and support. Both scales were adapted for human-human cooperation to enable cross-agent comparisons. Across three studies (N = 409) encompassing a cooperative card game, LLM interaction, and a decision-support system, analyses of dimensionality, reliability, and validity indicated that both scales successfully differentiated between cooperation partners of varying cooperative quality and showed construct validity in line with expectations. The scales provide a basis for empirical investigation and system evaluation across a wide range of human-AI cooperation contexts.

The project of aligning machine behavior with human values raises a basic problem: whose moral expectations should guide AI decision-making? Much alignment research assumes that the appropriate benchmark is how humans themselves would act in a given situation. Studies of agent-type value forks challenge this assumption by showing that people do not always judge humans and AI systems identically.This paper extends that challenge by examining two further possibilities: first, that evaluations of AI behavior change when its human origins are made visible; and second, that people judge the humans who program AI systems differently from either the machines or the human actors they are compared against. An experiment with 1,002 U.S. adults measured moral judgments in a runaway mine train scenario, varying the subject of evaluation across four conditions: a repairman, a repair robot, a repair robot programmed by company engineers, and company engineers programming a repair robot. We find no significant difference in evaluations of the repairman and the robot. However, judgments shifted substantially when the robot's actions were described as the product of human design. Participants exhibited markedly more deontological, rule-based reasoning when evaluating either the programmed robot or the engineers who programmed it, suggesting that rendering human agency visible activates heightened moral constraints. These findings indicate that people may evaluate humans, AI systems acting in the same situation, and the humans who design them in meaningfully different ways. The fact that these evaluations do not necessarily converge gives rise to the alignment target problem: which normative target should guide the development of artificial moral agents in high-stakes domains, and whether these plural judgments can be reconciled within a coherent account of value alignment.

AI agents are increasingly deployed to execute tasks and make decisions within agentic workflows, introducing new requirements for safe and controlled autonomy. Prior work has established the importance of human oversight for ensuring transparency, accountability, and trustworthiness in such systems. However, existing implementations of Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) mechanisms are typically embedded within application logic, limiting reuse, consistency, and scalability across multi-agent environments. This paper presents a decoupled HITL system architecture that treats human oversight as an independent system component within the agent operating environment. The proposed design separates human interaction management from application workflows through explicit interfaces and a structured execution model. In addition, a design framework is introduced to formalize HITL integration along four dimensions: intervention conditions, role resolution, interaction semantics, and communication channel. This framework enables selective and context-aware human involvement while maintaining system-level consistency. The approach supports alignment with emerging agent communication protocols, allowing HITL to be implemented as a protocol-level concern. By externalizing HITL and structuring its integration, the system provides a foundation for scalable governance and progressive autonomy in agentic workflows.

What looks like acceleration can be a quiet transfer of burden from the present to the future. Attempts to replace human labor with AI systems are often presented as rational responses to technological progress, but that view is often structurally short-sighted. Across software development and adjacent knowledge industries, AI is increasingly attractive because it appears to reduce labor costs, speed output, and improve short-term metrics. Yet those gains may be achieved by drawing down human capabilities that are slow to build and difficult to restore. This paper develops a mechanism of capability masking and capability erosion under AI labor substitution. AI-generated output can create the appearance that organizational capability has been replaced, even when dependence on skilled human labor remains. That appearance can support hiring restraint while slower costs accumulate in the background. Evidence from AI-assisted coding shows that generated output still requires substantial human verification and remains uneven in correctness, maintainability, and security. Repository-level studies also suggest limits in handling broader codebase context. More broadly, labor-market, political-economy, and industrial-strategy evidence suggests that substitution pressures are being driven by managerial cost incentives and national competition while increasing risks of concentration and platform control. The result is a system that may look more efficient in the short term while becoming more fragile over time.

Human-centred systems require an understanding of human actions in the physical world. Temporally extended sequences of actions are intentional and structured, yet existing methods for recognising what actions are performed often do not attempt to capture their structure, particularly how the actions are executed. This, however, is crucial for assessing the quality of the action's execution and its differences from other actions. To capture the internal mechanics of actions, we introduce a domain-specific language EXACT that represents human motions as underspecified motion programs, interpreted as reward-generating functions for zero-shot policy inference using forward-backwards representations. By leveraging the compositional nature of EXACT motion programs, we combine individual policies into an executable neuro-symbolic model that uses program structure for compositional modelling. We evaluate the utility of the proposed pipeline for creating executable action models by analysing motion-capture data to understand human actions, for the tasks of human action segmentation and action anomaly detection. Our results show that the use of executable action models improves data efficiency and captures intuitive relationships between actions compared with monolithic, task-specific approaches.

Behavioral Profile (BP) annotation is difficult to automate because it requires simultaneous coding across multiple linguistic dimensions. We treat BP annotation as a bundle of annotation skills rather than a single task and evaluate LLM-assisted BP annotation from this perspective. Using 3,134 concordance lines of 30 Chinese metaphorical color-term derivatives and a 14-feature BP schema, we implement a skill-file-driven pipeline in which each feature is externally defined through schema files, decision rules, and examples. Two human annotators completed a two-round schema-only protocol on a 300-instance validation subset, enabling BP skills to be classified as directly operable, recoverable under focused re-annotation, or structurally underspecified. GPT-5.4 and three locally deployable open-source models were then evaluated under the same setup. Results show that BP annotation is highly heterogeneous at the skill level: 5 skills are directly operable, 4 are recoverable after focused re-annotation, and 5 remain structurally underspecified. GPT-5.4 executes the retained skills with substantial reliability (accuracy = 0.678, \k{appa} = 0.665, weighted F1 = 0.695), but this feasibility is selective rather than global. Human and GPT difficulty profiles are strongly aligned at the skill level (r = 0.881), but not at the instance level (r = 0.016) or lexical-item level (r = -0.142), a pattern we describe as shared taxonomy, independent execution. Pairwise agreement further suggests that GPT is better understood as an independent third skill voice than as a direct human substitute. Open-source failures are concentrated in schema-to-skill execution problems. These findings suggest that automatic annotation should be evaluated in terms of skill feasibility rather than task-level automation.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in human decision-making, yet distinguishing systems that genuinely amplify human cognition from those promoting excessive dependence remains underdefined. This paper introduces a framework to distinguish cognitive amplification (improving hybrid performance without degrading human capability) from cognitive delegation (outsourcing reasoning to the AI). We define four metrics: the Cognitive Amplification Index (CAI*), Dependency Ratio (D), Human Reliance Index (HRI), and Human Cognitive Drift Rate (HCDR). We test this framework in an agent-based NetLogo simulation across three reliance regimes and multiple dependency-atrophy configurations, performing constrained optimizations and parameter sweeps to determine if positive collaborative gain is recoverable. Finally, we introduce an extension with an explicit human-AI interaction term. Our metrics effectively distinguish degenerate AI-dominated delegation, capability-preserving but weakly competitive interaction, and structurally dependent boundary regimes. Across all baseline configurations, no regime achieves positive collaborative gain relative to the best standalone baseline, even when reducing capability atrophy to zero. This limitation proves structural rather than merely parametric. Positive collaborative gain (CAI* > 0) becomes attainable only after introducing an explicit interaction term allowing retained human capability to contribute directly to the assisted output. This framework provides a basis for evaluating whether human-AI systems remain cognitively sustainable. The results suggest that preventing capability erosion alone is insufficient for genuine amplification if the architecture remains delegation-oriented. Amplification requires both preserved human capability and a coupling mechanism through which it contributes productively to the hybrid outcome.

Despite rapid progress in autonomous web agents, human involvement remains essential for shaping preferences and correcting agent behavior as tasks unfold. However, current agentic systems lack a principled understanding of when and why humans intervene, often proceeding autonomously past critical decision points or requesting unnecessary confirmation. In this work, we introduce the task of modeling human intervention to support collaborative web task execution. We collect CowCorpus, a dataset of 400 real-user web navigation trajectories containing over 4,200 interleaved human and agent actions. We identify four distinct patterns of user interaction with agents -- hands-off supervision, hands-on oversight, collaborative task-solving, and full user takeover. Leveraging these insights, we train language models (LMs) to anticipate when users are likely to intervene based on their interaction styles, yielding a 61.4-63.4% improvement in intervention prediction accuracy over base LMs. Finally, we deploy these intervention-aware models in live web navigation agents and evaluate them in a user study, finding a 36.8% increase in user-rated agent usefulness. Together, our results show structured modeling of human intervention leads to more adaptive, collaborative agents.

Articulation modeling enables robots to learn joint parameters of articulated objects for effective manipulation which can then be used downstream for skill learning or planning. Existing approaches often rely on prior knowledge about the objects, such as the number or type of joints. Some of these approaches also fail to recover occluded joints that are only revealed during interaction. Others require large numbers of multi-view images for every object, which is impractical in real-world settings. Furthermore, prior works neglect the order of manipulations, which is essential for many multi-DoF objects where one joint must be operated before another, such as a dishwasher. We introduce PokeNet, an end-to-end framework that estimates articulation models from a single human demonstration without prior object knowledge. Given a sequence of point cloud observations of a human manipulating an unknown object, PokeNet predicts joint parameters, infers manipulation order, and tracks joint states over time. PokeNet outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods, improving joint axis and state estimation accuracy by an average of over 27% across diverse objects, including novel and unseen categories. We demonstrate these gains in both simulation and real-world environments.

Commercial insurance underwriting is a labor-intensive process that requires manual review of extensive documentation to assess risk and determine policy pricing. While AI offers substantial efficiency improvements, existing solutions lack comprehensive reasoning and internal mechanisms to ensure reliability in regulated, high-stakes environments. Full automation remains impractical and inadvisable when human judgment and accountability are critical. This study presents a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop agentic system that incorporates an adversarial self-critique mechanism as a bounded safety architecture for regulated underwriting workflows. In this system, a critic agent challenges the primary agent's conclusions prior to submitting recommendations to human reviewers. This internal system of checks and balances addresses a critical gap in AI safety for regulated workflows. Additionally, the research develops a formal taxonomy of failure modes to characterize potential errors by decision-negative agents. This taxonomy provides a structured framework for risk identification and management in high-stakes applications. Experimental evaluation using 500 expert-validated underwriting cases demonstrates that the adversarial critique mechanism reduces AI hallucination rates from 11.3% to 3.8% and increases decision accuracy from 92% to 96%. At the same time, the framework enforces strict human authority over all binding decisions by design. These findings indicate that adversarial self-critique supports safer AI deployment in regulated domains and offers a model for responsible integration where human oversight is indispensable.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as decision-making agents in high-stakes domains and as imitators of human behavior in the social and behavioral sciences. Yet how closely LLMs mirror human decision-making remains poorly understood. This gap is critical: misalignment could produce harmful outcomes in practice, while failure to replicate human behavior renders LLMs ineffective as social simulators. Here, we address this gap by replicating large-scale game-theoretic experiments and by introducing a systematic prompting and probing framework for machine-behavioral evaluation. We test three open models typically used to power agents (Llama, Mistral, and Qwen). Across 121 dyadic games spanning four classical game types, Llama reproduces human cooperation patterns with high fidelity, while Qwen aligns closely with Nash equilibrium predictions. Characterizing models through behavioral phenotyping, we find that humans and Llama share an envious decision profile, while Qwen and Mistral exhibit different profiles. An attention-based analysis of payoff salience reveals Llama processes payoff information in a structured, layer-dependent manner absent in Qwen and Mistral, suggesting a mechanistic basis for its closer alignment with human behavior. Population-level behavioral replication is achieved without persona-based prompting, simplifying the simulation process. Extending the experimental parameter space beyond the original human-tested games, we generate and preregister testable hypotheses for novel game configurations. Our findings demonstrate appropriately configured LLMs can replicate aggregate human behavioral patterns, exhibit human-like decision phenotypes, and enable systematic exploration of unexplored experimental spaces, offering a complementary approach to traditional behavioral research that generates new empirical predictions about human social decision-making.

Human feedback is critical for aligning AI systems to human values. As AI capabilities improve and AI is used to tackle more challenging tasks, verifying quality and safety becomes increasingly challenging. This paper explores how we can leverage AI to improve the quality of human oversight. We focus on an important safety problem that is already challenging for humans: fact-verification of AI outputs. We find that combining AI ratings and human ratings based on AI rater confidence is better than relying on either alone. Giving humans an AI fact-verification assistant further improves their accuracy, but the type of assistance matters. Displaying AI explanation, confidence, and labels leads to over-reliance, but just showing search results and evidence fosters more appropriate trust. These results have implications for Amplified Oversight -- the challenge of combining humans and AI to supervise AI systems even as they surpass human expert performance.

Earth s gravity fundamentally shapes human behaviour. The brain encodes this force as an internal model of gravity, enabling the prediction and interpretation of gravitational effects during perception and action. Understanding how this model adapts to altered gravity is critical for predicting human performance in spaceflight. We present a computational framework for modelling neurophysiological adaptation across diverse gravitational environments. The framework has two components trained on open-access data from altered-gravity studies, particularly parabolic flights. The first component (CorticalG) employs a lightweight multilayer perceptron neural network to predict gravity-dependent changes in EEG frequency bands, estimating cortical state under different gravitational loads. The second component (PhysioG) uses independent Gaussian process models to capture broader physiological responses, including heart rate variability, electrodermal activity, and motor control. To complement the quantitative modelling, we simulated subjective experience across gravitational environments using the Large Language Model (LLM) Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Physiological outputs prompted the model to generate narratives describing alertness, bodily awareness, and cognitive state across zero gravity, partial gravity of the Moon and Mars, and hypergravity. This framework provides a novel approach for investigating human adaptation to spaceflight. It offers a predictive tool to assess performance and resilience, supporting the design of future space exploration missions.

AI is changing work and decision making faster than many institutions can adapt their operating practices. We argue that this adaptation gap makes human resilience a core capability for the AI era. We define resilience as the capacity to absorb disruption while preserving effective action and human agency around core purposes. The framework operates at three interacting levels. Psychological resilience keeps a person goal-directed under stress. Social resilience makes trusted support and correction available across a group. Organizational resilience turns detected problems into learning and recovery. We connect established resilience and technostress research with direct AI-in-the-loop experiments. General resilience is trainable, while AI-specific causal evidence is still emerging. Direct AI studies show that assistance can raise productivity and spread expertise. Other experiments show improved expressed empathy and more calibrated reliance. We translate these findings into a practical agenda for AI education, workplace design, governance, and evaluation. The central proposal is socio-technical: structural safeguards define the operating boundary, while resilient people and institutions provide adaptive capacity when conditions change.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed for simulating human behaviors across diverse domains. However, our position is that current LLM-based human simulations remain insufficiently reliable, as evidenced by significant discrepancies between their outcomes and authentic human actions. Our investigation begins with a systematic review of LLM-based human simulations in social, economic, policy, and psychological contexts, identifying their common frameworks, recent advances, and persistent limitations. This review reveals that such discrepancies primarily stem from inherent limitations of LLMs and flaws in simulation design, both of which are examined in detail. Building on these insights, we propose a systematic solution framework that emphasizes enriching data foundations, advancing LLM capabilities, and ensuring robust simulation design to enhance reliability. Finally, we introduce a structured algorithm that operationalizes the proposed framework, aiming to guide credible and human-aligned LLM-based simulations. To facilitate further research, we provide a curated list of related literature and resources at https://github.com/Persdre/awesome-llm-human-simulation.